Spending and Receiving Stolen Coins.

[Serith]

The self-reported hacker from the recent Bitcoinica theft has been distributing stolen coins over IRC.

If you recieve offers of stolen coins or have been sent tainted bitcoins, visit https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=82581.0, for information on how to redeem them safely. As with any theft, law enforcement will likely become involved and stolen coins may subject you to criminal investigation and/or charges - please be safe!

Bitcoin-related channels will not tolerate soliciting or distributing stolen coins.

For more information regarding the situation, please visit https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=81045.0

I would love to know who else among Important People support it, because this is crazy, enforcing it will do a lot more harm to Bitcoin as a whole then any theft. It will make a person uncertain about bitcoins in his wallet and if he is actually free to spend them as pleased. So, are you on your own in this or do you have other people supporting you, and who are they?

[1713306264]

1713306264

[1713306264]

1713306264

[1713306264]

1713306264

[1713306264]

1713306264

[niko]

How does it work with cash?  Like with any stolen goods?  If you KNOW you're accepting stolen cash, you're guilty of a crime. If you don't know, then, well, you don't know. Can someone come to you the next day and say - well, those were stolen banknotes, give them back, and work things out with whoever you got them from?

[Kettenmonster]

... it will do a lot more harm to Bitcoin as a whole then any theft.

Guess what, that is what they want to achieve!
This kind of attack is much easier to implement than theese dreaded 51%.
Maybe be it is not that effective but could be efficient enough for at least a while until the next poke is at hand.

[R-]

How does it work with cash?  Like with any stolen goods?  If you KNOW you're accepting stolen cash, you're guilty of a crime. If you don't know, then, well, you don't know. Can someone come to you the next day and say - well, those were stolen banknotes, give them back, and work things out with whoever you got them from?

To the people who were unaware they were receiving stolen Bitcoins, they would not face any charge.

[hazek]

If you KNOW you're accepting stolen cash, you're guilty of a crime.

It's a crime according to who? When did I agree this is a crime?

Stop imposing your fantasy world of monopolies on violence and the laws of a group of people that call themselves the government on me, KTHXBYE.

[Sukrim]

To the people who were unaware they were receiving stolen Bitcoins, they would not face any charge.

"Mr. judge, I was unaware the lady in question was only 15 years old..." - "Well then you won't face any charge of course!"
You would make a nice policeman!

Seriously, the whole thread here is a joke/perfect example how to spread FUD.

[Gabi]

Since when bitcoin is cash?

[Serith]

How does it work with cash?  Like with any stolen goods?  If you KNOW you're accepting stolen cash, you're guilty of a crime. If you don't know, then, well, you don't know. Can someone come to you the next day and say - well, those were stolen banknotes, give them back, and work things out with whoever you got them from?

To the people who were unaware they were receiving stolen Bitcoins, they would not face any charge.

The assumption behind Bitcoin is that a person or an organization is capable of protecting it's private keys. If you do not agree with this, then you also do not agree that Bitcoin has any future and you should go back to using safe and reversible fiat.

[R-]

To the people who were unaware they were receiving stolen Bitcoins, they would not face any charge.

"Mr. judge, I was unaware the lady in question was only 15 years old..." - "Well then you won't face any charge of course!"
You would make a nice policeman!

Seriously, the whole thread here is a joke/perfect example how to spread FUD.

Different context. An analogous situation: Convicting the owner of a charity who accepted a small donation from an unknown individual. Also, interesting: the first example that popped into your head ^.

[niko]

If you KNOW you're accepting stolen cash, you're guilty of a crime.

It's a crime according to who? When did I agree this is a crime?

Stop imposing your fantasy world of monopolies on violence and the laws of a group of people that call themselves the government on me, KTHXBYE.

Hazek, it's not a fantasy, it's a reality. Stolen goods. Real world. Government. Neighbors. Mainstream culture. Ignoring all this is living in a fantasy.  If someone steals my money, I am still considered the rightful owner in most functioning societies. Perhaps not in your fantasy world - but in real life, yes. If this money is ever retrieved by the police, I will be getting it back.

Bitcoin is only different in that it's still in its infancy, and maybe not recognized as money by the law enforcement and courts... yet.

[niko]

How does it work with cash?  Like with any stolen goods?  If you KNOW you're accepting stolen cash, you're guilty of a crime. If you don't know, then, well, you don't know. Can someone come to you the next day and say - well, those were stolen banknotes, give them back, and work things out with whoever you got them from?

To the people who were unaware they were receiving stolen Bitcoins, they would not face any charge.

Of course not, but they would be required to turn it back to the rightful owner if it were cash (or any other stolen goods) in most countries.

[LoupGaroux]

How does it work with cash?  Like with any stolen goods?  If you KNOW you're accepting stolen cash, you're guilty of a crime. If you don't know, then, well, you don't know. Can someone come to you the next day and say - well, those were stolen banknotes, give them back, and work things out with whoever you got them from?

To the people who were unaware they were receiving stolen Bitcoins, they would not face any charge.

Of course not, but they would be required to turn it back to the rightful owner if it were cash (or any other stolen goods) in most countries.

Based on what exactly? Just because somebody claims a massive theft occurred, and lists an allege4d address that the "taintcoins" went to, there is no compelling reason to believe it is true, and there is absolutely no enforceable standard in any civilized country that would "require" anyone to send hypothetical value based on cryptographic solutions back to some other anonymous collection of cryptographic solutions. Prove rightful owner, prove these are the sames coins... can't be done. If they go through one or more legitimate transactions, or even "launderings" how can you believe they remain tainted?

The bitcoin, just like fiat, is an abstract token of value, based on an electronic solution. It has no inherent identity that you can claim is legal or illegal. If it is taken from you, but is then transferred to some other number of users through valid transactions that are accepted in the blockchain, those bitcoin are just as valid as any other.

And the fact that Luke Jr., fascist manipulator extraordinaire, is behind the definition and the "cleansing" of this category of coin is just laughable. A developer who wants to impose his will on the world in every possible way, and especially in terms of cryptocurrency deciding what is valid and what is not? Spare me.

Anybody wants to send those nasty ass coins out for good clean uses, feel free to dump them my way, and I guarantee not a single one will go through any cleansing procedure by my hand. Send them to: 1D5nEHeBzKrw57rjGFWn7JQ2dzqpHnuxVs, and feel free to track them to your hearts content.

[BladeMcCool]

Since nobody has jurisdiction over Bitcoin, I think there is no issue. Also your definition of "stolen" is my definition of "accidentally gave away" and again there is no body with jurisdiction to make binding findings on that matter, so its all pretty moot. Secure your wallet or don't use Bitcoin. It is truly that simple.

[Littleshop]

Since nobody has jurisdiction over Bitcoin, I think there is no issue. Also your definition of "stolen" is my definition of "accidentally gave away" and again there is no body with jurisdiction to make binding findings on that matter, so its all pretty moot. Secure your wallet or don't use Bitcoin. It is truly that simple.

There is an issue.  The issue is breaking into the computer that held the bitcoins.  That is a crime in most countries.  Stealing the information is also a crime in most countries.  After the fact, and once the bitcoins are transferred, they are no longer the same bitcoins.  While I would not want this to happen to me, I do agree with you that the transferred coins themselves, under a different private key, are no longer stolen.  They are not even the same coins! 

We can talk about being tainted all day long, but once transferred it may be easy to think of them as stolen, but in technicality they are not. 

[Luke-Jr]

And the fact that Luke Jr., fascist manipulator extraordinaire, is behind the definition and the "cleansing" of this category of coin is just laughable. A developer who wants to impose his will on the world in every possible way, and especially in terms of cryptocurrency deciding what is valid and what is not? Spare me.

Your slander discredits your entire post.

Since nobody has jurisdiction over Bitcoin, I think there is no issue.

Every State has jurisdiction over Bitcoin transactions initiated or received within its borders, just like any other business done there.

[Luke-Jr]

Since nobody has jurisdiction over Bitcoin, I think there is no issue. Also your definition of "stolen" is my definition of "accidentally gave away" and again there is no body with jurisdiction to make binding findings on that matter, so its all pretty moot. Secure your wallet or don't use Bitcoin. It is truly that simple.

There is an issue.  The issue is breaking into the computer that held the bitcoins.  That is a crime in most countries.  Stealing the information is also a crime in most countries.  After the fact, and once the bitcoins are transferred, they are no longer the same bitcoins.  While I would not want this to happen to me, I do agree with you that the transferred coins themselves, under a different private key, are no longer stolen.  They are not even the same coins! 

We can talk about being tainted all day long, but once transferred it may be easy to think of them as stolen, but in technicality they are not. 

Strictly speaking, you are probably right that this would not be considered theft. But in addition to unauthorized use of the computers, I believe most jurisdictions would hold the act of signing the Bitcoins over to a new address to be fraud with the equivalent fiat value in damages.

[marcus_of_augustus]

I'll just toss this into the mixing pot ...

http://www.bitcoinfog.com/

[Littleshop]

I'll just toss this into the mixing pot ...

http://www.bitcoinfog.com/

There are so many ways to mix, disguise or confuse the coin trail.  One is of course gambling sites.  The other is random donations. 


Another pretty hard to counter trick is to buy bitcoin merchandise at bitcoin stores  and send the merchandise to known members of the community or even just a random person.  Now the 'taint trail' leads right to known people.  Or does it?  The point is almost any information you can glean from following coins may be there by accident, or on purpose.  And unlike an unexpected 'donation' to a public address, how is a store going to know that the order it received was not genuinely from the person's name entered into the address field?   It's not like the online store is going to write someone a letter to their physical address asking about the order first.  Any email address used in the order could be controlled by the tainted coin holder.

[JusticeForYou]

Doesn't anybody else see the very Big problem with this "Recovering Tainted Coins" or even labeling them 'tainted'?

Businesses will stay away in droves because there are to many 'what ifs' to the equation.

What If: Bicoinica stole its own coins reported them stolen and then gets to recover them after selling them at market? (Not accusing just a what if for example).

What If: A business or site isn't aware of the stolen coins and uses them and passes them on. (i.e. the Faucet) Technically the faucet received stolen coins and passed them on. Should they be responsible for the coins they passed on? Or should just the end receiver?

Who is even deciding they are stolen?  Have they been reported stolen to the appropriate police agency in the appropriate jurisdiction? What is the Police Report Number? So people can report reception of stolen coins? Who is the assigned case officer? So the people reporting can talk to the right person.

If no report has been filed, then this is 'self help' in order to retrieve stolen coins. Which could make the people recovering the coins thieves themselves if they haven't dotted the 'i's' and crossed the 't's'.

There will be many DB's of 'Tainted' coins. Some will be updated, some will not be, some will be forgot, so when the coins are returned to a rightful owner there will be a probability that those DB's won't be updated and the coins will be confiscated again from the rightful owner.  

Then there will be the issue of why some coins form some businesses get returned but other coins form other businesses don't get returned. It will not be 'equally' enforced which is a problem in of itself.

And plus: Most of the people pulling off these thefts will know how to get around the set up systems to avoid the problems of them being 'tainted' so some unsuspecting third party will get shafted.

So all these systems of labeling coins 'tainted' will only hurt the greater bitcoin community.

The Intent here is good, but remember the cliché: "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

[payb.tc]

Doesn't anybody else see the very Big problem with this "Recovering Tainted Coins" or even labeling them 'tainted'?

i read this whole thread, and it's quite apparent that a lot of people do (myself included).

Who is even deciding they are stolen?

Mark Karpeles, always Mark Karpeles